News Flash: Your Success is NOT because of You.": A modern day allegory that helps to illustrate the best love story every told.

(For copyright purposes I made this video from clips from footage provided by Ironman. The song Grace Flows Downs is performed by Christinia Nockles)


You need to watch the video prior to reading the blog. :) 


The popular worldview of Deism that flourished in the late 17^th and 18^th century espoused a view that God, the Supreme Being that created all things, got the universe and life started, set in motion the natural laws to govern creation, and then committed the ultimate act of abandonment.  Put differently, He got the earth spinning and walked away.  Interestingly, this was the dominant worldview of the framers of our Constitution of the United States.  It is a well-accepted belief that our framers were Christians.  And as much as Thomas Jefferson and others had a high tolerance for the Bible as well as citing the Bible in their works, there is very little to suggest they articulated key New Testament doctrines of salvation made possible by grace through faith, Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, or that salvation is made possible only through Jesus.  In other words, their deism allowed them to have plenty of intellectual room for the existence and role of God, but their deism lacked the personal intimate details of the same God that put on human flesh for the purpose of restoring them back into a right relationship with Himself. 

Unlike the preferred intellectual deistic worldview of the 18^th century, the Bible provides plenty of evidence that our Heavenly Father created with a purpose for relationship.  God did not leave the pinnacle of his creation, humanity, to be parented by a set of natural laws.  Instead, He created us for a love relationship.  “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.” The Psalmist describes a Heavenly Father that took a

personal interest in his own conception in Psalms 139:13-14.  The Old Testament profit Jeremiah speaks of the Heavenly Father’s love awareness of us before we were even formed in our mothers womb Jeremiah 1:5.  These two passages provide a picture of a Creator that is intimately involved in his creation.  


These are great passages to cite when families experience babies that are perfectly healthy and grow and develop without any issues.  But what about the families that experience the deep pain of miscarriage, stillbirths, or babies that will grow and live the rest of their lives with debilitating diseases?  Did God somehow mess up in the in vitro “knitting” process? Or, did God always intend, before conception, that a person would be born with significant challenges? I am treading lightly here because only by the grace of God have we been blessed with three healthy babies.  I cannot begin to understand the pain so many families have to experience. 

Where was God when Ricky Hoyt was strangled by his own mother’s umbilical cord while in vitro causing tremendous brain damage coupled with cerebral palsy?  The story of Ricky and his dad Dick is well documented by now.  I was first introduced to this story over ten years ago, and when I see footage of this father’s love for his son, I am still brought to tears.  For those who are unfamiliar with this family’s story, Ricky was rendered paralyzed and lacked the ability to communicate verbally.  At a young age with the help of computer technology, Ricky was able to talk to his father.  For years there were questions if Ricky even had the brain development to understand his parent’s attempts of communicating.  One morning Dick decided to take his son on a 5K jog pushing his son’s wheelchair the entire time.  After the run, Ricky communicated the message to his dad, “I have never felt more alive than when you took me on the run.”  This ignited an explosion of love in his dad’s heart that lead to intense training and Ironman triathlons and marathons for the next twenty-years. 

To me, this family’s story provides a much bigger narrative that helps to connect God’s desire to rescue us from our sin disease through the use of allegory and metaphor.  Ricky’s significant limitations provide another way of framing our spiritual limitations.  The idea that a person paralyzed with cerebral palsy could compete and finish an Ironman triathlon is the perfect definition of “impossible.”  Similarly, the idea that we could save ourselves from our sin disease through anything other than faith and God’s gracious gift of salvation is equally “impossible.”  And, yet, there remains a tendency for us to revert to a works-based relationship with Jesus.  A “boot-strap” theology that relies on individuals pulling themselves

up from their mistakes, mess-ups, and addictions, to somehow present themselves as fixed and healthy before God.  The “boot-strap” approach of Christianity may resonate with us Americans because we have a proud history of growing a nation from nothing to a global superpower.  American ingenuity is the false front that continually derails our faith dependence on Jesus.

The metaphor of Dick towing his son 2.4 miles in the ocean, carrying his son on his bike for 100 miles, and pushing his son 25 miles all in succession illustrates the way God sustains us in our life event.  Metaphorically, the footage of the Hoyt’s is the great reminder that just when we forget our spiritual limitations and lack of righteousness and begin thinking that somehow we are doing life on our own, achieving success through our own abilities, and bringing our own self-righteousness before God, we realize that God is doing ALL of the heavy lifting.  He is empowering us, sustaining us, blessing us, and most of all sharing His righteousness so that we may be presented clean and whole in His presence.  If there were ever a reminder of our human frailties when it comes to our own spiritual progress, this video is it. 

Probably my favorite piece of footage from the video below is the joy experienced by Ricky when they finish this particular event.  It is as if Ricky himself swam the 2.4 miles, biked the 100 miles, and ran the 25 miles.  The look of accomplishment on Ricky’s face gets me every time.  This scene allegorizes what I think the scene will be in heaven.  I think there will be a sense of joy and completeness when we enter the presence of our Heavenly Father who created us, rescued us, and sustained us.  The power of this video and the Hoyt story as it relates to God’s love for us is there are characteristics of our Heavenly Father that we will never experience if we never have to experience tragedy.  Please, please, please do not interpret this short essay as a thorough answer to the heart-breaking questions that some parents will ask their entire lives regarding the loss of their children.  In fact, I have my own questions about tragedies I ask everyday.  And that will never change for me this side of heaven.  But, this video may open the aperture a little wider putting on full display that when we were powerless to rescue ourselves, God put on human flesh and in His son Jesus, made it possible for us to compete in our own life event. For most people, their life event will be full of heartache, pain, and tragedy.  But rest in the assurance, that when our tragedies occur and render us powerless, there is ONE who remains all powerful to draw closer than ever before to get us through it.  The beauty of this reality is that God just doesn't get us through, but He also demonstrates elements of his love that would never be experienced if not for a Heavenly Father that grieves with us for the sake of bring about heart healing.  

As you watch this video, try to see yourself in Ricky’s position.  You are so loved that your Heavenly Father is so compelled to do anything and everything to be back in relationship with you.  And if you happen to be living under the false impression that you are flourishing because of your own sweat equity, may the scenes of this video be a gentle reminder that on your best day in the presence of God you are completely powerless to even take care of your own basic needs.  However, you have a Creator that has promised to finish your race for you if only you are courageous enough to trust and believe.  Be confident in this, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Phil 1:6

"I don't mind debating issues because I am usually always right!": How neuroscience can help us make better decisions.

Psychologists have been interested for decades in two modes of thinking that have been termed System 1 and System 2.  Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and 2002 Nobel Prize winner, describes the significance of System 1 and System 2 thinking in his best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow.  This blog will rely on the research shared by Kahneman to help identify the brain processes taking place "under the hood" so to speak that have relevance in our decision-making.  I am most interested in how System 1 and System 2 operate in tandem in the ways we develop, maintain, and communicate our beliefs.  It may be surprising to know that some of our strongest held beliefs (theology) may in fact be a result of a dominant, territorial System 1 and a “lazy” System 2. 

 

We are learning from the neuroscience community that our brains are much more than a

2.2lb lump of tissue that serves as our command center for our bodies.  Parenthetically, the weight of the brains of a Sperm whale is about 15lbs and an elephant is 8.8lbs.  What separate the human brain from other species are the complexities of our brain and the benefits of having a networked “upper” and “lower” brain organ.  The upper brain is typically associated with executive function located in our highly developed frontal lobes.  Lower function is typically associated with automatic, instinctive action like fight or flight reaction and other basic survival actions.  In contrast, higher brain function allows humans to exercise abstract thinking, reasoning, and complex analysis that transcend basic animal instinct to hunt and survive. 

Here is a short list providing a simple explanation to illustrate the types of function in each System. 

Automatic activities attributed to System 1:

·      Detect that one object is more distant than another.

·      Orient to the source of a sudden sound.

·      Complete the phrase “bread and ……”

·      Make a “disgust face” when shown a horrible picture.

·      Detect hostility in a voice.

·      Answer to 2+2=?

·      Read words on large billboards.

·      Drive a car on an empty road.

·      Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master).

·      Understand simple sentences.

·      Recognize that a “meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail” resembles an occupational stereotype.

Highly diverse operations of System 2:

·      Brace for the starter gun in a race.

·      Focus attention on the clowns in the circus.

·      Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.

·      Look for a woman with white hair.

·      Search memory to identify a surprising sound.

·      Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.

·      Monitor the appropriateness of your behavior in a social situation.

·      Count the occurrences of the letter “a” in a page of text.

·      Tell someone your phone number.

·      Park in a narrow space (for most people except garage attendants).

·      Fill out a tax form.

·      Check the validity of a complex logical argument.

There are a few particular rules as it relates to the function and relationship of Systems 1 and Systems 2 that help explain why we do what we do sometimes.

First, System 1 remains in the “on” position taking the bulk of the work as long as System 2 permits.  Second, System 2 is considered to be “lazy” that is to say it prefers to let System 1 do the work since the operation of System 2 takes more energy and uses more of the brain’s network.  Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions, sometimes our brain would rather defer to System 1 with an easier answer rather than deploy System 2. 

As you can see from the list of System 1 and 2 functions, System 1 is our intuitive command center.  Imagine going to the Apple store for the specific purpose of buying the latest iphone because your old phone is broke.  In dealing with the sales staff, you realize the phone you really want is out of stock and needs to be ordered and will take a few weeks; however, if you would settle for a lesser model you could purchase a phone that is on the shelf.  This is similar to the way our brains make intuitive decisions as well as form opinions.  System 1 has a limited “stock” of options (i.e. well established beliefs, opinions, and intuitive feelings) along with limited brain function (i.e. does not enlist the help of specific brain networks that would allow for deeper thinking or even thinking that would overturn the System 1's “stock” of answers.) Remember, System 1 remains in the “on” position because it is the most efficient way for our brains to function. 

This helps to explain Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” factor.  Our brains, via System 1, have developed a quick acting, ready response to many of the decisions we make throughout our day.  Some refer to this as their gut feeling or their intuition.  It is important to know that I am not necessarily saying that some of the decisions we make are not accurate or even good when using only System 1.  I am saying that if not careful, our brains may settle for the “easier” less “critical” route in making discerning, analytical decisions.  Remember the number one rule of neuron relationship in our brains.  The more they fire together; the more they wire together.  Over time, this creates a super highway in our brain.  Using the metaphor of a super highway, our brains have a well-established road system that carries our thoughts through well-established mapping or network.  Put simply, a person that has always believed that a button down dress shirt should never be worn with jeans when prompted by the option of wearing a dress shirt this way, their System 1 will default to its “stock” answer which is “dress shirts never go with jeans.”  This becomes a “no brainer” because the information super highway carries the dress shirt/jeans decision very quickly through the mental map using deeply entrenched road systems to conclude the answer.  It may be said that since System 2 is never engaged on this decision, the chance of a different outcome let alone an honest debate with a fashion savvy expert is rendered useless.

Second, System 2 is “lazy” not wishing to be in the “on” position as long as System 1 is engaged.  There has to be a conscious decision to turn System 1 “off” and engage or switch to the “on” position System 2.  There is a built in weakness with System 2 that has to be mentioned.  Kahneman defines the term “Heuristic” as the simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions.  He points out that this term comes from the same root as “Eureka.”  The implication of this relationship is that we may prefer making big life decisions never really engaging the brain System best equipped to arrive at the best decision.  The term “lazy” in this context is a preloaded term that explains that the human brain prefers efficiency instead of hard work. 

Put differently, “thinking hurts” because it takes more of the brain’s energy.  With survival being the brain’s primary goal, consuming energy and carefully budgeting the brain’s resources are vital. To understand this rule, think about the number of times a person would rather read a Cliff Note of a book instead of working through the actual book itself.  Think about the number of times a person would rather revert to “stock” positions on their political views instead of considering the argument that seem to challenge their ideology.  Think about the number of times people make purchase decisions based on very little relevant information about the product being purchased.  You get the idea?  Kahneman points out a very important characteristic of System 2, “System 2 is ultimately in charge with slowing down System 1 and impose logical analysis.”  Self-criticism is one of the functions of System 2; however, when it comes to our attitude and emotions System 2 makes for a better defense attorney than a prosecutor; an endorser rather than an enforcer.

This rule has implications in church work and the study of and use of Scripture that will be discussed later in this essay.

Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions our brains would rather revert to an easier answer even at the expense of not answering the initial question presented.  This rule is an illustration of what has been previously explained in the relationships between System 1 and System 2.  Kahneman supports this position, “System 2 often follows the path of least effort and endorses a heuristic answer without much scrutiny of whether it is truly appropriate.  You will not be stumped, you will not have to work very hard, and you may not even notice that you did not answer the question you were asked.  Furthermore, you may not realize that the target question was difficult, because an intuitive answer to it came readily to mind.”  The practice of substituting an easier question for a difficult question is common strategy implemented by System 2.  Remember, thinking hurts and takes energy and resources that may be used for survival.  

The practice of substitution occurs all the time in churches and formation of doctrines.  I remember growing up thinking that the Bible was one big book of individual verses that may be lifted at will to prove a point. The use of chapters and verse designations added later in the translation process add to this practice.  The technical term for this type of biblical use is “proof-texting.”  In other words, if a person was inclined to hold the position that baptism is not an important part of the faith formation process, they may like to cite Luke 23:32-43 the thief on the cross narrative.  After all, Jesus chose to save at least one person without the use of baptism.  Therefore, it must be the case that baptism is not necessary.  Notice the substitution of a singular event in Scripture, that is not even a salvation text, for the much more difficult question of analyzing the broader scope of Scripture regarding the occurrences and frequency of baptism. 

Another favorite proof-texting error occurs with the use of 1 Corinthians 14:40, “But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” This is the “stock” answer to anything in a church that may be different or a deviation from custom and heritage.  It is funny to think in my lifetime, to be more precise within the last twenty-years, there were church splits over the use of over-head projectors in lieu of using hymnals for church singing.  Did you notice I used “over-head projector” in that sentence.  My own kids have no concept of what that is since all they know are laptop projectors and Apple TV devices.  The point is that 1 Corinthians 14:40 was somehow used to suggest that using technology over hymnals would somehow be an infraction of 1 Corinthians 14:40 because technology is not decent or orderly. 

My favorite proof-text that was actually used against me on the discussion of whether or not

it is sinful for a Christian to consume alcohol is found in Habakkuk 2:15, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk.” This passage was cited to me as a scriptural command against drinking.  The person deploying this passage failed to cite the entire verse, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies!” This is humorous because not only did the individual substitute a host of scriptural references that condone alcohol and some that even present wine as a blessing from God for the quick win in an argument by citing part of one verse out of context, but he even reduced the proof-text even smaller or simpler to make his point.  There is no question to me what was actually taking place in this particular discussion.  My counterpart held to a very strong personal view about alcohol, which I respect.  It was much easier to lean on System 1 because at least his personal convictions could remain in tact at the end of the discussion. Plus, it would take a lot of critical analysis to work through the entire scope of scripture along with challenging self-views which is often more painful than doing the expository work.

In conclusion, knowing about System 1 and System 2 provides a framework to better understand some of the reasons why we make our decisions.  It is important to reiterate that just because our brains would prefer to take the path of least resistance does not necessarily mean we end up with wrong or even bad decisions.  It may be that this information is helpful in our own interpersonal communication.  There are reasons few major paradigm shifts or theological shifts occur at the proverbial office water-cooler.  More often than not, to engage in both personal and religious matters takes a lot of patience, time, and a lot of critical self-reflection.  Unfortunately, pastors and church bureaucracy have little built in time to give individuals the time needed to unlearn their long held beliefs in order to potentially relearn new ones.  It just may be that our ways of doing faith formation and discipleship in our churches fail to take into consideration one of the most important variables in the equation.  Our brains.  

This essay is not suggesting that we are to jettison our strongly held beliefs. Instead, take time to question and do the analysis needed to periodically run your own belief systems through the filter of objectivity.  This is best done by surrounding yourself with people you trust that hold a different view than you and are willing to give you their best reasons for disagreeing with you.  In turn, be willing to receive the best arguments that are contrary to your view and resist the temptation of substituting the simple answer for the complex answer.  Finally, take into consideration that the media specializes in targeting our System 1 functions, and they are winning in shaping our ideologues, our purchases, and our belief systems.   

  

The Blockbuster vs. Netflix Battle that every Church Leader Needs toRead

I have vivid memories of going to my local Blockbuster video store on Friday nights as a young teenager to find the next Ninja movie on the row of Ninja genre b-rated movies.  There was a time when individuals flocked to their local Blockbuster to take the walk of decision making around the periphery of the store often times making several laps starting with the newest releases all the way to the past greats located on the internal rows of the store.  Do you remember the VCR days when you were penalized for not rewinding the tape prior to returning?  The expression, “Be kind and Rewind” was the ubiquitous greatest commandment of the video rental industry.  After all, how terrible it would be to open your videotape and have to spend 30 second waiting for it to rewind.  By the way, I don’t think my kids even have the term “rewind” in their vocabulary. 

How did the movie rental giant collapse in a seemingly short period of time?  I think the story of Blockbuster is very relevant for church workers today.  In a word, Blockbuster’s demise was Netflix. But according to Dain Dunston’s blog story, there is much more to the Blockbuster/Netflix battle than meets the eye.  In short, Netflix leveraged the emerging Internet/streaming technology and created a model of getting movies to customers that did not involve driving to a facility, hoping said movie was in stock, waiting in line, and then dealing with late fees if not returned to said facility. 

But, Netflix was greatly outmatched by Blockbuster’s capital.  The story is told that both CEOs engaged in confidential talks about a merger.  Netflix was more than willing to sell to Blockbuster.  In one particular conference call, Netflix CEO admitted 22 times by mentioning Blockbuster that it had no real plan to stop Blockbuster from stealing its 1 million customers.  Because of boardroom fighting, the deal was never signed. 

Simultaneous to Netflix’s willingness to sellout to Blockbuster, the video giant made probably one of the worst CEO transitions in history.  The new CEO of Blockbuster forgot about their business model and ignored the previous strategies to leverage the Internet.   Out of a strong commitment to remain fixed to a dying model of managing brick and mortar (all the thousands of Blockbuster stores across the nation) and requiring their customers to drive to them multiple times a week proved to be the death nail of the video giant.  Of course, you know the rest of the story.  Neflix is now the primary delivery method for most movies.  What was one time the only concept of getting a video (epistemology) is now so archaic that when I talk to my seven year old about going to a movie rental store to get a video there is literally a blank stare on her face.  In fact, not only have I used terms that are not even in her vocabulary, but I also referenced a concept (epistemology) that is not even in her way of thinking or knowing. 

The moral of the story of the collapse of Blockbuster is not only a model of failed leadership, but more than that, it is a story of becoming so big and invested in brick and mortar capital that any notion of pivoting into a more nimble (technology laden) approach was so strange that it never occurred as a viable option.  To put in philosophical terms, Blockbuster had a particular epistemology (it believed that people only rent videos through a consumer model that required the use of a middleman or retailer.  Since people drive to grocery stores and clothing stores and engage in an exchange, then this must be the only way to deliver movies. 

Epistemology: How do we know
what we know?

All through history, we see examples of epistemology change.  In particular, church history is full of 500-year intervals of major epistemology changes (Tickle 2012).   Put differently, human history is full of fundamental changes that transcend merely technology and methodology.  Higher-level change that actually rewires the human brain that leads to new neural networks where old neuron constellations not only fail to fire they don’t even talk to each other.  For example, my seven and eleven year old trying to imagine the idea of a phone that only connected two individuals in audible ways for communication is not just weird; it isn’t even a knowledge construct accessible to them.  This is a simple way to illustrate a much bigger shift underway.

The Church in the United States is no longer the “Blockbuster” it used to be.  There are major shifts taking place in Western Christiandom as it relates to spirituality.  Charles Taylor, considered by many and me to be our C.S. Lewis of Western philosophy, tells the story of the secular age over the span of 500 years.  His opening premise in his book A Secular Age, “Why is it that 500 years ago it was virtually impossible NOT to believe in God and, yet, today’s faith, even for the staunchest believers, is only one human possibility among others.”  In other words, Christians today tolerate God language and even God relationship, but the idea that their success or flourishing is exclusively based on a God that blesses is no longer the case.  For a lot of reasons, Taylor’s observations need to be relevant for those in church work.  If the 800 plus pages of his work is too much, consider James K.A. Smith’s companion to Taylor’s A Secular Age that is only a few hundred pages. 

This essay is not intended to summarize Taylor’s primary viewpoints; however, I would like to focus on one major theme that seems to resonate in his explanation of secularity.  For many, the term “secular” means absent of God or spirituality.  Taylor redefines this term to reference a version of spirituality that is flat lacking the same level of enchantment that seemed to be obviously evident a few centuries ago.  Side note, divorce yourself from connecting the term “enchantment” with Disney.  Instead, “enchantment” is a reference to a particular worldview that had plenty of room to entertain notions of divine and spiritual movement among individuals and the church in a way that was haunted.  In other words, a few centuries ago it was common language to refer to God’s movement and interaction with humanity through spiritual means (the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost).  To use Taylor’s language, believers were more “porous” when it came to being “open” to the idea of a spiritual realm at work in their lives.  The Spirit moved in-and-out because of their pourousness.  This is contrasted with the “buffered” or no longer porous individual that is skeptical to any type of haunted or spiritual language.  Further, the intellectual and enlightenment distance separating a few centuries ago from today is too great to overcome. 

As a result, there are plenty of Blockbusters still hanging on to their models of capital and potentially missing the underground movement that is taking place in our Western culture, specifically, Christianity.  It would be too easy to point fingers at specific churches or denominations as it relates to their Blockbuster-like resistance to reframe their approach of doing Christianity.  This essay is not intended to call out any one particular church or movement, but instead, is intended to provide a thought-provoking dialogue regarding the capital we allow to drive our models of being church and even the ways we exclusively frame Jesus and the narrative of scripture.

I grew up in a church movement that grew from its earliest stages of only desiring to be mobile and staunchly evangelistic for the purpose of post-millennially ushering in the kingdom of God and bringing about the second return of Jesus.  This popular 19^th century eschatology was the driving force to ignite urgency.  There was no time to stop and conduct capital campaigns or invest resources for the sake of constructing a global organization.  As theologies shifted over time, churches, not just the one I referenced, took on a more permanent posture putting down deep stakes in contemporary culture.  This coupled with gaining capital: social, physical, fiscal, market, and even cognitive capital developed a particular way of imagining what and how the community of faith (the Church) was to be and how it was to function.  It is interesting to point out that First-Century Christians had next to no capital.  Something happens when faith and doing church is filtered through a capitalist ideology.  There is more at stake that can be lost.  Therefore, theology, decisions, church governance, and a host of other aspects are driven by capital. 

Unfortunately, human capital has become the biggest distraction from the original call of Jesus to discipleship.  I often wonder if Western churches are even able to discern this is taking place, but individuals are no longer viewed as being infinitely valuable because they are made in the image of God.  Instead, they are viewed as a hybrid being.  Someone who has a soul to win (notice even that expression reeks of gaining capital) along with someone that is capable of bringing their capital to the table.  Empty seats, because pews are no longer kosher for church growth experts, are tantamount to low rev airline seats.  If they are empty they are costing the organization/church.  Therefore, each seat has a potential capital associated with it that translates into keeping the Blockbuster operational.  If you have not picked up as of yet I am probably being way too critical in my commentary.  The truth is somewhere along this hyperbolic spectrum. 

This generation lacks the equipment
to connect with some of the vestiges
that so many churches remain loyal too.

All the while, there has been an epistemic shift that is growing up generations of children soon to be adults that will not even have the cognitive/spiritual equipment by which to play the videotapes/DVD’s Blockbuster has to offer.  Put differently, the brand loyalty that one time kept me going back to stalk the aisles for B-rated ninja movies was quickly replaced with a more efficient, less robust and capital heavy model to get my movie fix.  It just so happens economically it became cheaper because the cost to keep the behemoth alive was no longer the primary strategy.  I wonder how many churches are stuck in Blockbuster mode.  The Netflix generation is not any less spiritual or interested in Jesus.  In fact, they are less encumbered to live out their faith because they are not “card-carrying” you fill in the blank.  They may actually have a clearer understanding of “this world is not my home” hermeneutic; they are not interested in fixing their capital to something that is temporary.  Further, they are equally disinterested in fixing their allegiances with an entity that calls itself church when in actuality it is an entity that continues to fight for market dominance in a capital system that lacks kingdom currency.  While this generation lacks the business savvy of previous generations, they do not lack a passion to love and serve.  

Side note, along with the construction of denominational/sectarian organizations and allegiances comes a particular language and set of terms that serve to bolster the movements.  If Taylor is correct, the church may have to not only retool away from irrelevant practices, customs, and power structures, it will also need to re-think their very language games because it just may be that this generation and younger are not even equipped to play the videotapes they are attempting to put in their heads.